re: US jobless rate falls to 7.7 percent, a 4 year low, NBC reportsPosted by DeltaDoc on 12/7/12 at 10:07 am to JoBoo

quote:The overall labor force participation rate is expected to decline for the remainder of the decade, projected to fall to 62.5% in 2020.[6] By the year 2020, the subpopulation of older adults in the United States is expected to reach 97.8 million people, comprising 28.7% percent of the entire U.S. population, a rise from the 24.7% in 2010.[6] This increase in proportion of older adults can be attributed to the entire Baby Boomer cohort joining the older adult population (ages 55+) by 2020.

re: US jobless rate falls to 7.7 percent, a 4 year low, NBC reportsPosted by JoBoo on 12/7/12 at 10:11 am to ShortyRob

quote:Sadly, Americans are so fricking stupid, they don't even understand that you need to know BOTH the unemployment rate as well as total employment participation.

ORLY? During the economic boom of the 1950's, the participation rate never got above 60%. In fact, the participation rate only got to current levels in 1979, before that, it was below (mostly well below) current levels.

So your assertion that a higher participation level is necessary for economic growth is unfounded.

re: US jobless rate falls to 7.7 percent, a 4 year low, NBC reportsPosted by BugAC on 12/7/12 at 10:20 am to JoBoo

quote: This increase in proportion of older adults can be attributed to the entire Baby Boomer cohort joining the older adult population (ages 55+) by 2020.

I'm sorry, but aren't those that retire, then removed from any accounting of the labor force? Therefore there would be no add or subtract from the rate because they are no longer counted in statistics?

re: US jobless rate falls to 7.7 percent, a 4 year low, NBC reportsPosted by ShortyRob on 12/7/12 at 10:51 am to JoBoo

quote:You stated you need both. Well, you don't. So, yes you did assert that. That's the "need" part of your post.

I suspect you need to learn to read better.

I said you need to KNOW both numbers to properly evaluate the movements.

Let me reverse it for you. If there were a sudden huge spike in participation and tons of those folks got job, BUT, the "rate" went up because of the huge spike in participation, wouldn't rightly point out that there were positives in that info for Obama?

re: US jobless rate falls to 7.7 percent, a 4 year low, NBC reportsPosted by ShortyRob on 12/7/12 at 10:54 am to ShortyRob

quote:Let me reverse it for you. If there were a sudden huge spike in participation and tons of those folks got job, BUT, the "rate" went up because of the huge spike in participation, wouldn't rightly point out that there were positives in that info for Obama?

I'd like to add that this is actually very likely to happen.

When economies start to turn around, many people who had previously given up re-enter the job market. Often, this creates a short term spike in unemployment. However, pretty much every economist on the planet recognizes that this spike actually is caused by renewed optimism among job seekers.

This bump is exceedingly common. Hence, again, proof you need to know both pieces of information.

re: US jobless rate falls to 7.7 percent, a 4 year low, NBC reportsPosted by TROLA on 12/7/12 at 11:01 am to JoBoo

quote:ORLY? During the economic boom of the 1950's, the participation rate never got above 60%. In fact, the participation rate only got to current levels in 1979, before that, it was below (mostly well below) current levels.

So your assertion that a higher participation level is necessary for economic growth is unfounded.

So earlier in the thread it was retirees moving out of workplace, once that fallacy is shown incorrect you move onto to 1950's economics. The economy and what is needed in today's economy don't relate to the 50's. Society has moved to a dual household working relationship, many families rely on both incomes to support the life they have chosen and one proliferated by our Governments monetary policies.

re: US jobless rate falls to 7.7 percent, a 4 year low, NBC reportsPosted by mmcgrath on 12/7/12 at 11:13 am to Politiceaux

quote:I'm not asking a rhetorical question here: do you two believe that this was a real reduction? Do you believe that over 500k dropping out of the labor force is a legitimate point or is politically hackish? Do you think that looking past the 7.7 number and digging in is somehow being intellectually dishonest?

Honestly, the drop of .1 is really insignificant. You need to follow the numbers over several months or even a year to get an accurate picture.

Having said that I am enjoying the meltdown from posters who believe that the numbers are cooked. They honestly believed that the 7.8 number was "rigged" and that the new number were going above 8.

I would like to hear more about the analysis of workers dropping out of the force. I know the definition but a lot of people talk about it as if it is more people just giving up on life and living in a hut somewhere. I think that the baby boomer retirements have a lot to do with it. My mother held off retirement for several years because she was concerned about their inability to sell their house in a down market. When they finally sold in late summer, she announced her retirement. Coincidentally, it became official just recently with her last day about a month ago.